>As I keep saying, Obama tries to debate. But his audience is more comfortable with sound-bites, so he loses. When he does try a sound bite, he gives us the Post Office example.

Most of the populace is a bit busy with life and only wakes up to DC issues when they are large sweeping changes. When that happens the party in charge better have a solid, succinct set of policies backed by convincing arguments and solid spokesmen. Thus far the Democratic party has only demonstrated the solid spokesman aspect, and the bloom is coming off the rose. Ramming and jamming sweeping governmental takeover with little debate is never going to be well received. The strategy may have worked, but for opposition from their own party.

>Seems to me that a large segment of his audience is uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, meaning they cleave to whatever easy answer somebody else comes up with. Cost. Choice. Death Panels. Medicare costing 50% and growing = government screwup. Dickensian conditions wherever government runs healthcare. These simplistic (and wrong) concepts are easier to understand than trying to grapple with an $1T increased cost that won't increase the deficit or an $850B expenditure that is described as a $49B saving.

Repeatedly accusing the accusers of being "wrong" does not make it so. There's an serious difference of opinion regarding the role of government, health care as a "right" vs. choice, and cost vs value and their causes. In addition there are now 5 separate bills each with various aspects of the so-called FUD which have been in many ways written in, implicitly included, removed and non-excluded. There's a great deal to pick apart especially since passage of any combination means merging them all in committee. That means everything is back on the table.

>And as you note, he's losing the huge elderly voting population, partly because focus on and concern about health grows as you get older and people are affected by all the FUD, but also because people keep talking about Medicare $ reductions without explaining how that can be achieved without reducing service.

You do not seem to understand, seniors do not care about the rationalization. They have paid into a system for the better part of their lives that they expect to now be there. That system is already underfunded compared to what they were promised as shown by the overwhelming number of seniors with supplemental plans. They know that the system is bankrupt already and getting worse. They will not accept a single cut at the late stages of their lives when they need it most. There is no winning argument. You cannot frame the debate or explain with nuance. The only politically viable way to fix medicare is to increase spending while changing the program for the next generation and leaving the current program alone for those currently enrolled. And while framing that argument, do not say politically untenable phrases like "wither on the vine". For such "smart" people you'd think politicians would learn the simple stuff. ;)

>If the plan is to cut 4% waste to achieve $500B from Medicare over 10 years, why the $$%^# don't they say so?!

If you can cut 4% waste to achieve $500B from Medicare over 10 years why haven't they done it already? Why do we need a complete overhaul of everything else?